Time to Study Time

timeTime – Something you cannot actually see, or feel, but it’s effects on you are both felt and seen, except in Cattaraugus County, New York, where it does not exist.

In the world of ‘law’ time is everything, except in Cattaraugus County, New York, where evil rules the day. Time does not exist and neither does the law, or reality for that matter in this area of New York.

Anyone who studies the law understands the importance of “timelines”, as well as speedy trial, they are both important concepts in the world of law, lock forever into the Constitutions of the United States and New York, except in Cattaraugus County, New York.

In the recent events unfolding in a local case, another victim of the criminal Lori Rieman, who is masquerading as the District Attorney in Cattaraugus County, New York, sent another one of her henchwomen after her latest target…

Why doesn’t she show her present face and confront her victims herself?  The County Judge can show up and argue intelligently with her victim and she can’t? Why does she send her underlings to do her bidding, who end up ruining their careers over her complete lies and lawlessness…

To review the actual papers she, as well as one of her victim’s filed click here. If others are saying the victim does not know what he is doing, why are they going to such lengths in criminal activity, such as filing a response to the victims Omnibus motion in which they demand/claim that the victim is not allowed to file any more motions to their motions and/or documents, in accordance with “New York Criminal Procedure Law , Article 55”, which Rieman’s latest victim discovered it does not exist…

That’s right, at the Cattaraugus County District Attorney’s Office, if they don’t find a law to screw one of their innocent victim’s over, they just make one up. Click here for this story. 

In one of her latest examples of her criminal mindset, she sent one of her hench-women, who is just another victim of hers, too argue for her, against another one of her victim’s. She understands the elitist concept,  of the hegelian dialectic, where she pit’s one against the other and she sits back and laughs at both. What does she care, she still has a job. Do you?

lori-rieman-warmingIt seems that she is more concerned as to what is written on this website then she is following the law. “I need to be re-elected, let’s make my latest victims theories look bad…”

The only problem with her latest victim’s theories is they are based on law, not her illusions.

Back to the latest round of exposing corruption in Cat County…

In court Reieman and her cohorts falsely claimed that HER pretrial motion does not have any time limits and that time limits only apply to her victims.

Now is that just, honest or fair?

Further she claimed that her authority to file their change of venue motion is CPL §170.15 (3) (a), here is 170.15 (3) (a) ;

CPL §170.15: Under circumstances prescribed in this section, a criminal action based upon an information, a simplified information, a prosecutor’s information or a misdemeanor complaint may be removed from one local criminal court to another:

(3): At any time within the period provided by section 255.20, where a defendant is arraigned upon an information, a simplified information, a prosecutor’s information or a misdemeanor complaint pending in a city court, town court or a village court having trial jurisdiction thereof, a judge of the county court of the county in which such city court, town court or village court is located may, upon motion of the defendant or the people, order that the action be transferred for disposition from the court in which the matter is pending to another designated local criminal court of the county, upon the ground that disposition thereof within a reasonable time in the court from which removal is sought is unlikely owing to:

(a)    Death, disability or other incapacity or disqualification of all of the judges of such court; or

Section § 255.20 states;

“Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, whether the defendant is represented by counsel or elects to proceed pro se, all pre-trial motions shall be served or filed within forty-five days after arraignment and before commencement of trial, or within such additional time as the court may fix upon application of the defendant made prior to entry of judgment.”

As any reasonable person can see, CPL §170.15 (3) does not limit the filing of the motion to just a ‘defendant’, “At any time within the period provided by section 255.20, upon motion of the defendant or the people,…” it mandates either the defendant or the people to a specific time frame, further, CPL § 255.20 “all pre-trial motions shall be served or filed within forty-five days after arraignment and before commencement of trial,”

It clearly states ALL, meaning both the people and the defendant are limited to the time allowed in 255.20.

Further, the motion to change venue is a motion filed before trial, therefore it is a pre-trial motion. CPL § 255.20 clearly states “all pre-trial motions”, it does not limited it to just the defendant, it is for ALL motions, defendants (in this case another one of Rieman’s victims) and the “People” (don’t you love their Orwellian use of words).

It’s very clear that both are mandated to follow the law…

However, you being a reasonable and intelligent person, what do you think? Do you think the author of this article is correct or incorrect in his “interpretation” of the word(s) ?

Lori Rieman’s interpretation for “all pre-trial motions”? = coverup, lies, etc… that’s how she  interprets it.

Why do her victim’s have to follow the law, and Rieman does not? Why is the victim being treated different then someone who appears with a lawyer? Aren’t we all equal under the “law”?

More Criminal Activity by Rieman;

Further she would go on and serve the motion for change of venue on October 31st, 2014, over 60 DAYS after the judge recused himself, and then schedule the hearing on November 10th, 2014.

Here she violated the law again, which mandates 13 days, but she only provided 11 days. The purpose of here doing this (besides breaking the law) was to confuse, misdirect or not give her targeted victim enough time to file a motion in opposition.

By doing so she was in direct violation of 22 CRR-NY 1000.13, which specifically states;

(ii) When motion papers are served by regular mail, at least 13 days notice shall be given (CPLR 2103[b][2]).

Good old Cat County, where the rule of law does not exist.


Download PDF